Ed,
   Are you trying to say that Jespersen is not a linguist? That syntax and
linguistics are exclusive fields?
   We have had many talks on list about the failure of linguists to
address the public needs.  Dick Hudson's "English Patient" article
traces it pretty well on that side of the ocean. Martha and I co-wrote
an article that tries to describe the context over here. There are
linguists, though, and I would include Jespersen, interested in a view
of language that nonscholars can use in their everyday lives. Linguists
have had a hands-on role in the national curriculum in England and in
the genre focused approaches in Australia. It seems silly to discount
linguists from the discussion.
   To extend Cornelia's comparison, I hope biologists are deeply involved
in the textbooks my children read. The books are, of course, trying to
introduce people to the field, not carry on the cutting edge
discussions of the day. Even linguists are capable of that distinction.

Craig


Cornelia:
>
> Towards the end of your message, which I have found very interesting,
> and informative, you state:
>
> "A final request—there’s no need to badmouth linguists. We are
> professionally trained to understand the structure and functions
> of language—just like biologists are trained to understand living
> organisms."
>
> I agree with you. I have two degrees in linguistics, and I am one of
> those people "professionally trained to understand the structure and
> functions of language." But this is a GRAMMAR forum, isn't it? When a
> discussion on grammar drifts into specialized topics in linguistics,
> then the purpose is lost. There are forums where those who want to
> discuss linguistics can meet their peers and discuss phonetics and
> phonology, semantics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, etc. What
> is the purpose of having such discussions on the ATEG forum when most
> of the people here are educated for elementary and secondary school
> teaching? As I mentioned before, I am a member of the LSA, and the
> Linguist List. I read messages and post there, but I come here for
> grammar.
>
> When I spoke about "good old grammar" I meant traditional grammar. I
> believe the purpose of this forum is to bring back into education the
> grammar which has been for centuries the basis of language education
> in the public schools. When you state that “good old grammar” is not
> enough to give students the kinds of knowledge we want them to have"
> you don't explain how you define this "good old grammar." What is it?
>
> Here I am getting rather confused, because people have been mixing in
> their messages *traditional grammar* and *English linguistics.* Now,
> what should public school teachers and college English Composition
> instructors teach in their classes: traditional grammar, or English
> Linguistics? With what should first grade teachers beging their work
> in grammar education: tree structures, tense deixis, the sense and
> meaning of words, the binding of anaphor?
>
> If there is a man who has the right to speak about language, grammar,
> and linguistics, I believe this man is Chomsky. Let me repeat what he
> stated about grammar teaching in public school and college:
>
> "I don't see how any person can truly be called "educated' who
> doesn't know the elements of sentence structure, or who doesn't
> understand the nature of a relative clause, a passive construction,
> and so on.Furthermore, if one is going to discuss literature,
> including here what students write themselves, and to come to
> understanding, and to come to understand how it is written and why,
> there conceptual tools are indispensable.
>
> For these purposes, I think traditional grammar so-called ( say, the
> grammar of Jespersen) remains today a very impressive and useful
> basis for such teaching. I can't see any reason for teaching
> structural grammars of English, or for teaching transformational
> grammar in the manner of some instructional books that I have seen."
>
> Chomksy refers in the above quote to Jespersen's classic grammar
> entitled "Essentials of English Grammar"(1964) and describes it as a
> prototype of the grammars students should learn in public school and
> college composition classes. For Chomsky such grammar provides the
> foundation of the knowledge all students should have in order to be
> able to call themselves "educated." I call Jespersen's classic an
> example of the "good old grammar."
>
> Let's leave English linguistics for those students who want to move
> up from the basics to a specialized knowledge of language and teach
> our students those grammar fundamentals which have been neglected for
> decades in the American education.
>
> Eduard
>
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Cornelia Paraskevas wrote...
>
>>
>>
>>Ed and others concerned about the scope/sequence project:
>>
>> 
>>
>> I understand the
>>concern about terminology, but I don’t share the fundamental belief
> that
>>nothing about scope/sequence can be resolved until we resolve the
> issues with
>>terminology.  Instead of starting from
>>isolated examples that have not allowed us to move in our
> scope/sequence
>>project, I believe it is more productive to first establish a
> general framework
>>and then look at specifics. 
>>
>> 
>>
>>For the general framework, it is useful to look at state
>>standards:  almost all states have fairly
>>explicit guidelines regarding students’ knowledge of “grammar,” and
> these
>>guidelines are fairly consistent across states. 
>>These guidelines must be considered as we decide what to include in
> our
>>project;  otherwise, each state will
>>dismiss our project as being irrelevant to their own standards. 
>>
>> 
>>
>>In addition to state standards, information from the
>>National Curriculum has been extremely useful; 
>>that  document provides general
>>guidelines regarding scope/sequence, leaving specific details to each
>>school. 
>>
>> 
>>
>>The general framework includes what should students know
>>generally about language, why should they know it and when should
> they know it.
>>
>> 
>>
>>First, the ‘what’: 
>>they need to know basic structure and to understand how  structural
> choices affect meaning. Most
>>current research dealing with the grammar/writing interface
> (including
>>punctuation) considers clauses to be the fundamental unit—not
> sentences—and
>>that is useful for a basic understanding of grammar, one that
> encourages
>>students to see the general, underlying structure of any
> construction:  a clause, then, is any subject/verb pairing
>>–finite or non finite.  A construction
>>headed by an infinitive, then, is a clause if it has a subject—
> explicit or
>>implicit.  Now, one  might argue that all non-finite constructions
>>are phrases and not clauses.  A quick
>>look at established reference grammars like Huddleston’s newest book
> should
>>solve that problem.  Our terms will
>>follow from our current understanding of language structure in
> conjunction with
>>traditional terminology;   where the two
>>differ, an explanation should suffice to make the differences clear.
>>
>> 
>>
>>‘Why” should they know it? 
>>Because –using the example with infinitives—understanding about
>>finite/non-finite constructions can be useful in their writing, as
> they try to
>>move from less fluent to more fluent syntactic constructions.
>>
>> 
>>
>>“When” should they know it? 
>>Obviously, after they have mastered basic structure in writing;  the
> sequence of learning is becoming clearer
>>in recent years through the work of scholars like Katharine  Perera
> who has been researching the
>>development of writing abilities in young students.
>>
>> 
>>
>> I believe that any scope/sequence project
>>should not be rigidly prescriptive; 
>>rather, it should consider our current understanding about language
>>structure, our knowledge about writing abilities and text
> development as well
>>as general state requirements.   In other
>>words, “good old grammar” is not enough to give students the kinds
> of knowledge
>>we want them to have.  A final
>>request—there’s no need to badmouth linguists. 
>>We are professionally trained to understand the structure and
> functions
>>of language—just like biologists are trained to understand living
>>organisms. 
>>
>> 
>>
>>Cornelia Paraskevas
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/